A study by the Tax Policy Center, a project of the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, claims that Mitt Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible.

TPC claims that Romney cannot cut tax rates by 20 percent across the board and maintain revenue neutrality without raising the net tax burden on the middle class. According to TPC, in the year 2015 under Romney's tax plan, "maintaining revenue neutrality mathematically necessitates a shift in the tax burden of at least $86 billion away from high-income taxpayers onto lower- and middle-income taxpayers. This is true even under the assumption that the maximum amount of revenue possible is obtained from cutting tax expenditures for high-income households."

So, according to the Tax Policy Center, we start out with an $86 billion hole in Romney's tax plan. But the Tax Policy Center's own calculations show that that $86 billion hole can, in fact, be filled without raising middle class taxes.

TPC's study assumes that pro-growth tax reform cannot produce any economic growth. TPC acknowledges that, according to an economic model created by Harvard professors Greg Mankiw and Matthew Weinzerl that assumes tax reform will produce economic growth, "the tax cuts would result in revenue reductions of $307 billion (instead of $360 billion)." In other words, economic growth could fill $53 billion of that $86 billion hole.

So where does the money come from? Ohh yeah, that's right. Huge cuts to vital programs! Both your posts citing reports fail to address that. Every source that I've seen has said for Romney's plan to successfully reduce the deficit, it would require either more taxes or cuts to vital public programs including Education, Public Works, etc.. The quality of life for the average citizen will suffer greatly.

I mean why else aren't Romney/Ryan actually DETAILING their plan? Because they can't without revealing that fact. And you want to sit there talking about Dems are denying facts?

Come on my dude. It's hard to point fingers at somebody cheating when you aren't dealing the cards evenly from jump.

Unless you are a liberal because a liberal will try o scare the shit out of you and point at teachers police and fire as the first cuts that would ever be impacted if liberals could not get your hard earned money

If you spend less, you don't need as much revenue, and there's more money in the peoples' pockets.

Click to expand...

The thing is, that is MUCH easier said than done. It's easy to say "we will cut taxes 20% and decreasing spending."

I would love a 20% tax cut, but I know that isn't feasible.

If we go through with Romney's 20% tax cut, that removes about $5 trillion from government revenue over 10 years. That's a huge increase in our deficit.

In order to not add to the deficit, we have to find a way to offset that $5 trillion in revenue.

The Romney campaign isn't even taking that stance you said in your post, "cut government spending", because they know that is simply rhetoric, easier said than done.

Their plan is to offset that by closing loopholes in the tax code that benefit the rich. They haven't given specifics on which loopholes, only saying they won't touch capital gains.

The experts ran the numbers and closed every loophole possible (not including those Romney vows not to touch) and it still couldn't offset the $5 trillion cut. That's why the experts say it would need a $2,000 increase in taxes on the middle class to cover the remaining. The experts said unless Romney can give more specifics, taking away mortgage tax credit for the middle class (resulting in increased taxes for the middle class) is the only way to cover the difference.

Again, I would LOVE a 20% tax decrease tbh. But it is EASY to simply say "we'll just cut government spending". That angle isn't even Romney's plan.

His plan is to close tax loopholes, but he still can't name enough to make the math work.Biotch! You wish you had a phone like mine...

So where does the money come from? Ohh yeah, that's right. Huge cuts to vital programs! Both your posts citing reports fail to address that. Every source that I've seen has said for Romney's plan to successfully reduce the deficit, it would require either more taxes or cuts to vital public programs including Education, Public Works, etc.. The quality of life for the average citizen will suffer greatly.

I mean why else aren't Romney/Ryan actually DETAILING their plan? Because they can't without revealing that fact. And you want to sit there talking about Dems are denying facts?

Come on my dude. It's hard to point fingers at somebody cheating when you aren't dealing the cards evenly from jump.

Click to expand...

Um, read the links in their entirety.

The reports fail to address nothing, because your highly presumptuous falsities are nothing but scaremongering. You're either simply full of shit, or blind to the facts.

And why aren't they detailing their plan to your liking? Forgetting the fact that Obama presented no specifics in 2008 - I guess you didn't give a shit then, right - you simply choose to ignore the reality of the situation. Their priorities are clear as day. They have said that corporate income tax needs to come down to be more in line with the average of the industrialized world. They want to close loopholes for the higher income tax brackets. They want to balance the budget but the budget doesn't have to be balanced by merely raising taxes, which is how the democrats seem to view things. The budget can be balanced by a growing economy and if Romney wins, a wave of investment is going to hit this country as the uncertainty surrounding what government will do next begins to fade. That is his plan. He has stated that we will balance the budget but certain things are off limits like increased taxes for the middle class. Providing a framework and then allowing both sides of the aisle to fill in that framework is the best way to go about it. I mean shit, you like to complain about filibustering, but when the party you hate presents clear intentions to effect bipartisan policy to stabilize the economy of this nation, you complain about inevitabilities of politics; they could present precise specifics that WOULD still be subject to change reliant on BOTH parties because of the nature of government. Fucking morons.

I mean, what hope is there when I indicate the precise confirmation bias you partisan muppets are subject to in the very posts you quote, that also happen to contain the very information that EVIDENCES your futile delusions as just that: A FALSE REALITY! Something you want to believe, that is fucking false.

Read again.

TPC's study assumes that pro-growth tax reform cannot produce any economic growth. TPC acknowledges that, according to an economic model created by Harvard professors Greg Mankiw and Matthew Weinzerl that assumes tax reform will produce economic growth, "the tax cuts would result in revenue reductions of $307 billion (instead of $360 billion)." In other words, economic growth could fill $53 billion of that $86 billion hole.

Click to expand...

I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.

Click to expand...

The fact is your beloved Obama administration are looking at the projections and estimates over the next decade as absolute gospel - we all know how great government forecasts and projections are, yeah right - and implying that by NOT CUTTING as they intend, and what their projections are based on, is an increase in spending, which is misleading and completely disingenuous. The fact is the Republicans will not impose the cuts that are projected to occur over the next decade, but that does not mean they're proposing to increase spending over today's level, just not decrease it over the next decade. There is a distinct difference. You are either blindly ignorant to this, or choose to perpetuate the bullshit.

So taking that in to consideration along with the papers previously posted, it becomes clear that such tax cuts are possible without your terrifying infrastructure cuts that will result in "the quality of life for the average citizen suffer(ing) greatly."

National debt is increasing at an ostensibly ***** rate and all measures taken to counter this trend in the wrong direction have failed miserably. Rampant spending, doubled gas prices, 35% food stamp increase, 150% long-term unemployment rise, 10% poverty rise, a 25% increase in unemployed blacks, abysmal growth, national debt increased by 35% at a rate 27 times faster than history and more than twice as fast as Bush, absurd personal spending at tax payer cost, bandaid stimulus failure, you're in the shit RIGHT now, my friend. Since Obama took office it has only gotten worse.

Considering the current mess we're stuck with, the Republicans stated goals will only make things better. Not worse. If you want worse, vote Obama.

The democrats are cheating, their whole campaign spreads bullshit and you eat it up. The research indicates what the Republicans propose CAN and WILL be realized without the middle class suffering, and without your infrastructure cuts. Wake the fuck up.

So you support using credit to purchase something you can't pay for (car) and what? Maintain pay rate? Raise pay rate (taxes)?

What happens when there's no more revenues to tax and you want a bigger car? Why not just tax everyone 100% and give them all a car?

Click to expand...

I didn't say I support anything. That's just the way it is. If we cut or eliminate taxes, how does the Gov't pay off it's debt? Not to mention, since we're already in debt, even if we cut spending significantly, where do we generate the money to pay for essential programs?

So there's no waste, excess, fraud or inefficiency in government spending? Every spending cut will definitely have a negative effect somewhere?

I can't agree with this line of thinking.

Click to expand...

Of course there's waste, excess, and fraud (inefficiency goes hand in hand with waste). Even rooting all those sources out will cost money. Personally, I think the pay our highest Gov't officials get is rediculously excessive but good luck getting Congress to vote for their own pay cuts.

When you consider the fact that we're already in a deficit, how exactly does the Gov't pay American Citizens for their jobs without taxing? How does our infrastructure stay intact? You can't just print up more money or inflation goes through the roof defeating the purpose.

And why aren't they detailing their plan to your liking? Forgetting the fact that Obama presented no specifics in 2008 - I guess you didn't give a shit then, right - you simply choose to ignore the reality of the situation. Their priorities are clear as day. They have said that corporate income tax needs to come down to be more in line with the average of the industrialized world. They want to close loopholes for the higher income tax brackets. They want to balance the budget but the budget doesn't have to be balanced by merely raising taxes, which is how the democrats seem to view things. The budget can be balanced by a growing economy and if Romney wins, a wave of investment is going to hit this country as the uncertainty surrounding what government will do next begins to fade. That is his plan. He has stated that we will balance the budget but certain things are off limits like increased taxes for the middle class. Providing a framework and then allowing both sides of the aisle to fill in that framework is the best way to go about it. I mean shit, you like to complain about filibustering, but when the party you hate presents clear intentions to effect bipartisan policy to stabilize the economy of this nation, you complain about inevitabilities of politics; they could present precise specifics that WOULD still be subject to change reliant on BOTH parties because of the nature of government. Fucking morons.

Click to expand...

The country is already on the road to recovery. Romney/Ryan have nothing to do with that and stepping into office with no clear cut plan does not clear up uncertainty at all.

Let's not forget that the fact that there is no budget is due entirely to the Republicans in the House focusing purely on trying to block Obama from doing ANYTHING good for the country, just to take the Presidency back. Never in the History of the US has the House been so Hostile to the President as to actually HARM the citizens they're supposed to be serving. It's incredibly clear that the Party has their priorities in the wrong place.

I mean, what hope is there when I indicate the precise confirmation bias you partisan muppets are subject to in the very posts you quote, that also happen to contain the very information that EVIDENCES your futile delusions as just that: A FALSE REALITY! Something you want to believe, that is fucking false.

Click to expand...

It's already been pointed out that you're citing a report that refuses to try to fill in the blanks left out of Romney's plan. They don't want to be presumptuous.. yeah ok. Numbers are numbers man and the money HAS to come from somewhere.

The fact is your beloved Obama administration are looking at the projections and estimates over the next decade as absolute gospel - we all know how great government forecasts and projections are, yeah right - and implying that by NOT CUTTING as they intend, and what their projections are based on, is an increase in spending, which is misleading and completely disingenuous. The fact is the Republicans will not impose the cuts that are projected to occur over the next decade, but that does not mean they're proposing to increase spending over today's level, just not decrease it over the next decade. There is a distinct difference. You are either blindly ignorant to this, or choose to perpetuate the bullshit.

Click to expand...

So they're cutting Taxes across the board, not cutting from the infrastructure, not spending more (despite a pledge to increase Defense spending).. and all this is paid for by closing some loopholes for the very rich? The Numbers don't add up.

As a direct result of Republican blocking, not the Obama Administrations making bad choices. Reps have played chicken with our Budget fucking us over even more than we already were and they're continuing to block jobs bills as well. And you want to reward them for these actions by putting them back into a more absolute power?

National debt is increasing at an ostensibly ***** rate and all measures taken to counter this trend in the wrong direction have failed miserably. Rampant spending, doubled gas prices, 35% food stamp increase, 150% long-term unemployment rise, 10% poverty rise, a 25% increase in unemployed blacks, abysmal growth, national debt increased by 35% at a rate 27 times faster than history and more than twice as fast as Bush, absurd personal spending at tax payer cost, bandaid stimulus failure, you're in the shit RIGHT now, my friend. Since Obama took office it has only gotten worse.

Click to expand...

You keep saying spending is "rampant" yet Obama has spent less than any other President in decades!

Bush-era Tax cuts that are still in effect has kept our revenue generation low. Bank regulation being loosened (admittedly, entirely Clinton's fault) caused the Housing Bubble to burst and American CEO's sending jobs overseas to fill the pockets of their shareholders are what got us where we are. Every significant Bill that's been created by the Obama Administration has been blocked by Reps every chance they have for no reason other than to ruin his Presidential legacy and you want to blame it on him? This isn't Obama's inability to push Bipartisan Bills.. it's straight up sabotage.

Considering the current mess we're stuck with, the Republicans stated goals will only make things better. Not worse. If you want worse, vote Obama.

Click to expand...

Their goals can only work if they fulfill them and the last 4 years don't show me that they've got the American People's interest at heart. They show me that they'd rather put this country into the shitter as some sort of vengeance than to be willing to work to make things better for everyone. Given their track record, I'm supposed to just trust that these "Job Creators" that would receive substantial tax cuts are going to reinvest in the American people instead of continuing the trend of shipping jobs overseas and giving themselves bonuses for posting profits by cutting American jobs? On the word of a Man whose business practices are notorious for those very same things? Nope. With that kind of history, I want to see an extremely specific, itemized plan of how this is supposed to work before I'd even consider supporting him.

And that's before I even START to measure his god awful stance on Women's Rights, Gay Marriage, Church vs. State, etc...

Not going to jump into the ring too deep here but that graph about Obama's spending is just a political talking point and is just misleading. Trying to paint him as some sort of conservative spender is not going to hold up. Also notice that the graph assigns all of 2009 to Bush.

2009 = largest government outlays when compared to GDP since World War 2. If you want to throw it at Bush's feet, the years since have only seen small dips, still the largest outlays compared to GDP since WW2. The only way that graph holds up is when you throw all of 2009's HUUUUGE increases at Bush's feet, and then measure Obama's growth the years following. That doesn't make him a conservative spender. He tacked on to the totals racked up by the biggest spending president of all time.

If I have a friend that jumps from 250 pounds to 300 pounds under Bush, and then only puts on 15 more pounds under Obama, does that mean that he got healthier under Obama, or just that he was less of a glutton than he was under Bush.